Jump to content

Comments on digital cameras


fay_cori

Recommended Posts

Dear fellow American photonetters,

 

Please take note. In England, photographers may be elevated to the nobility, and must be addressed as "Your Lordship". This is obviously a trait of a highly advanced civilization; over here, Bill Gates and Getty Images merely confer upon them the status of "Image Acquisition Android".

 

Think of it...Ellis, Earl Vener of Houston; Phlip, Marquis of Greenspun,; The Rt. Hon. Albert, Duke of Kaplan...the possibilities are quite extraordinary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One day, this won't be a film vs digital saga. It will be what it will be, a choice of one medium with full control over another medium filled with dependencies. That's all this is friends. Finally, and never before in the history of image making, have we achieved this possibility. If you want to keep trusting other people and chemicals and machines in your emulsion based photography, that's fine, what ever floats your boat. If you believe that your favorite results will always be there and depended on, that's fine too. But I suggest otherwise. If you struggle with learning something new or have lost curiosity in new tools, that's just a natural progression to death. Digital is not easy, but neither is swimming. Most don't drown. I've always been sparked by 'what could be'. A camera is a device to create an image conceived by the photographer. Creativity embraces the possibilities of what could be and is not meant to cry over the death of dinosaur's. The game's gotten bigger with more boundaries. If you struggle with setting the time on your vcr and resent computers, placing descent on digital isn't the mediums fault. If you're a boring photographer and rely on simple film exploits to achieve differences other than 'normal' to wow people, and are afraid of losing this with digital, then that's your attribute, not the medium of digital. Cost? Cost of what? Replacing film? Time? Upgrading? No. I'd like you to start think of it in another manner. The cost of being independently responsible with full creative control of the image is now a very small cost to pay. I simply can not understand why there is a resentment towards a tool that can capture 100iso RAW and have it behave like anything you wish or prefer, over and over again. Jump in, the water's nice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you ducking yet eric?:)))

 

i think the main fears for digital are storage and the constant upgrading. take away the artsy fartsy opinions of 'feel' and 'look' and i believe that's the biggest hold back. look at d30 owners. where's the support? i don't resent technology or computers, but i resent companies bending over backwards to sell me a product that they forget about in 2 years. bought a g4 at vistek camera just over a year ago, 2 weeks later, got a flyer from vistek promoting the new G5!!!! lol. believe me, i'm trying to convince myself. i just need some more prodding .

*stepping off my soapbox*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"this says to the world that Canada is still a colony, and not a sovereign nation"

 

What, begad, those colonials have independence? Say it isn't true by jove!

 

Seriously I don't think there is anyone alive today who thinks Canada is a colony ...except for a few Canadians. Of course it should be the 51st state of the union really.

Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also you have displayed an appalling ignorance of headgear. Turbans are most typically worn by Sikhs. There is a large population of Sikh people here in the UK and they are often more loyal to the institution of Royalty than most indigenous English people!

 

Sikhs are in no way, shape or form, Muslim.

 

Even if you had identified the correct form of Muslim male headgear (which is a Kufi) your comment would be offensive to peaceful Muslims everywhere. (And that is the overwhelming majority of them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you are a traitorous British citizen Trevor it does not mean that you are also an expert on all aspects of the English language or perceived insults to other cultures. The Collins English Dictionary defines "turban" as follows

 

Quote '1. a mans headdress, worn esp. by Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, made by swathing a length of linen,silk etc, around the head or a cap like base'

 

I have provided a link to your comments about the Royal family to the MI5 link you kindly provided as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the Collins English Dictionary's definition of the English word to describe male middle eastern headdress Eric, not mine, and derives from Turkish (tulbend) or Persian (dulband) and I am sure the compilers of that tome would have a much greater knowledge of the English language than you and Trevor put together, although I am sure such a pompous pair of twits like you two would never admit that.

 

As for your ridiculous assertion that the Collins English Dictionary is a publication that operates from an intrinsic racial superiority philosophy, I leave it to anyone who is still reading this thread to decide indeed, as to which one of us is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I have provided a link to your comments about the Royal family to the MI5 link you kindly provided as well."

 

Photo.net, the Royal Family and MI5 in one sentence - heady stuff. I completely sympathise with your wish to put that traitor and scoundrel Trevor Hare behind bars (in Guantanamo?), but I'm sure that MI5 get loads of calls from loonies everyday. They'll find it hard sorting out a serious complaint like yours from the rest of the garbage. Best of luck, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...